BFR'd yet again...

[Jay Honeck]

Well, I lived through my biennial torture session yet again. One hour of
ground-grilling on Friday, followed by 1.2 hours of flight testing
yesterday.

We had a great time (my CFI on this flight was a good friend, which always
makes things easier) and I think I'm about as proficient as I've ever
been -- but I was impressed at how rusty I had become with hood work. Since
postponing my pursuit of the instrument rating I've fallen out of the habit
of practicing while under the hood, and it felt like it. Although my
instructor said I did fine, I've made a mental note to fly more often with
the foggles on...

The only unusual (for me, anyway) thing we did was 60-degree banked turns
while under the hood. I managed to hold altitude on a 360 degree turn, but
the relatively high Gs combined with the turbulent air made for a fairly
uncomfortable experience.

Still, it's always good to be stretched a bit -- it's easy to get complacent
droning along on cross-country flights all the time.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michelle P]

BFR? what is that?
Get a new rating every two years and you never have to have a BFR again! ;-)

Michelle

Jay Honeck wrote:

>Well, I lived through my biennial torture session yet again. One hour of
>ground-grilling on Friday, followed by 1.2 hours of flight testing
>yesterday.
>
>We had a great time (my CFI on this flight was a good friend, which always
>makes things easier) and I think I'm about as proficient as I've ever
>been -- but I was impressed at how rusty I had become with hood work. Since
>postponing my pursuit of the instrument rating I've fallen out of the habit
>of practicing while under the hood, and it felt like it. Although my
>instructor said I did fine, I've made a mental note to fly more often with
>the foggles on...
>
>The only unusual (for me, anyway) thing we did was 60-degree banked turns
>while under the hood. I managed to hold altitude on a 360 degree turn, but
>the relatively high Gs combined with the turbulent air made for a fairly
>uncomfortable experience.
>
>Still, it's always good to be stretched a bit -- it's easy to get complacent
>droning along on cross-country flights all the time.
>
>

--

Michelle P ATP-ASEL, CP-AMEL, and AMT-A&P

"Elisabeth" a Maule M-7-235B (no two are alike)

Volunteer Pilot, Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic

Volunteer Builder, Habitat for Humanity

[Teacherjh]

>> Well, I lived through my biennial torture session yet again.

You don't do the Wings program?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> You don't do the Wings program?

I did for several years when it first started. I think that got me out of
my first required BFR back in '96.

Haven't heard much about the program lately, to be honest. We still go to
every possible FAA seminar in the area, and I occasionally see the green
cards out on the tables -- but they don't seem to be pushing it much.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> >> Well, I lived through my biennial torture session yet again.
>
> You don't do the Wings program?
>

The Wings program is hardly worth the trouble.

People who fly regularly should only need the hour of flight time with an
instructor. Those who need more work than that are unlikely to get what they
need from the Wings program.

[Journeyman]

In article <S4ulc.22738$I%1.1633543@attbi_s51>, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Still, it's always good to be stretched a bit -- it's easy to get complacent
> droning along on cross-country flights all the time.

For sure. I'm planning to get up early tomorrow and go sit in the
cockpit of the new plane just to practice dry runs of the emergency
procedures for my new plane (still bouncing between "this is sooo
kewl" and "omigodwhathaveidone").

I've never done a BFR, but I have a cool AOPA hat with a bunch of
nifty-looking pins in it. :-)


Morris

[Journeyman]

In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>
>> You don't do the Wings program?
>
> The Wings program is hardly worth the trouble.

Statistically, Wings program participants are safer. I'm convinced
the Wings program has nothing to do with it, it's a self-selecting
sample of people who particlurly care about safety and are willing
to actively attend seminars & stuff.

I decided to do the Wings program just to collect all the pins. I
figured I'd be attending the seminars anyway, and I'd certainly have
more than 3 hours of dual with an instructor.

This year, I'm planing to get serious about the commercial, now that I
have reliable access to a complex airplane. I'll definitely do the
wings stuff in the course of the training I'd do anyway.


Morris (just because you don't do Wings doesn't mean you're unsafe)

[Jay Honeck]

> Statistically, Wings program participants are safer. I'm convinced
> the Wings program has nothing to do with it, it's a self-selecting
> sample of people who particlurly care about safety and are willing
> to actively attend seminars & stuff.

Mary and I attend all the Wings seminars that come to our area -- usually at
least two per year. (In fact, a night in our "Pan Am Clipper Suite" is the
grand prize, given away at all the Iowa FAA seminars to help encourage
attendance...)

We also do BFRs.

I guess that makes us "belt & suspenders" kind of folks...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Richard Russell]

On Tue, 04 May 2004 19:41:34 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Statistically, Wings program participants are safer. I'm convinced
>> the Wings program has nothing to do with it, it's a self-selecting
>> sample of people who particlurly care about safety and are willing
>> to actively attend seminars & stuff.
>
>Mary and I attend all the Wings seminars that come to our area -- usually at
>least two per year. (In fact, a night in our "Pan Am Clipper Suite" is the
>grand prize, given away at all the Iowa FAA seminars to help encourage
>attendance...)
>
>We also do BFRs.
>
>I guess that makes us "belt & suspenders" kind of folks...
>
>;-)


Kudos to you for offering the prize. I've been to many of the
seminars in my area and there is never a prize of any kind.

I don't think, however, that you're a belt and suspenders canditate.
Probably more like belt and elastic waistband because you're
definitely doing more than either one is worth by itself but you're
not getting the three hours of flying associated with the Wings
program. Then again, you're lucky to get enough time in the air that
the BFR is probably more than adequate. In your case, you probably
benefit more from the extra ground work that you get from Wings.
Yeah, I'm jealous.

Rich Russell

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 18:15:27 -0500, Journeyman
> wrote:

>In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>>> You don't do the Wings program?
>>
>> The Wings program is hardly worth the trouble.

I do the Wings programs regularly, but I don't recall ever sending in
for any stage. When I took the AirSafety Foundation/ABS proficency
training I did qualify for one phase of the wings program.

I've been attending since they started and don't think I have a
certicicate for even phase one.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Statistically, Wings program participants are safer. I'm convinced
>the Wings program has nothing to do with it, it's a self-selecting
>sample of people who particlurly care about safety and are willing
>to actively attend seminars & stuff.
>
>I decided to do the Wings program just to collect all the pins. I
>figured I'd be attending the seminars anyway, and I'd certainly have
>more than 3 hours of dual with an instructor.
>
>This year, I'm planing to get serious about the commercial, now that I
>have reliable access to a complex airplane. I'll definitely do the
>wings stuff in the course of the training I'd do anyway.
>
>
>Morris (just because you don't do Wings doesn't mean you're unsafe)

[David Brooks]

I've been to a few, and collected one certificate, but I have this basic
question.

Why is Wings promoted as though it were an "easier" way of getting a BFR?
Flight review is 2 hours minimum, Wings is the program plus 3 hours minimum.
If you're appealing to someone who wants the BFR made easier, that's
backwards. If you're appealing to people who would attend the seminar
anyway, the BFR thing is unimportant.

Perhaps I'm missing this: you can have an instructor say "yeah, we've done
the 3 hours dual in the same time frame" if you're currently working on a
certificate - it doesn't have to be a separate ride. Yes?

-- David Brooks

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 3 May 2004 18:15:27 -0500, Journeyman
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
> >>
> >>> You don't do the Wings program?
> >>
> >> The Wings program is hardly worth the trouble.
>
> I do the Wings programs regularly, but I don't recall ever sending in
> for any stage. When I took the AirSafety Foundation/ABS proficency
> training I did qualify for one phase of the wings program.
>
> I've been attending since they started and don't think I have a
> certicicate for even phase one.

[Teacherjh]

>>
Mary and I attend all the Wings seminars that come to our area...

We also do BFRs.

I guess that makes us "belt & suspenders" kind of folks...
<<

Not quite. If you also did the three hours of Wings training every year, you'd
be belt and suspenders. As it is, you are belt and suspender clips. :)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Teacherjh]

>> it doesn't have to be a separate ride. Yes?

Wings rides do not have to be separate. However, they must cover the wings
material.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Journeyman]

In article >, David Brooks wrote:
> I've been to a few, and collected one certificate, but I have this basic
> question.

It's promoted for safety. People who participate in the wings program
are (on average) safer. IMHO, it's an inversion of cause and effect.
There are people who have a higher-than-average interest in safety.
People who participate in the wings program are selected from that
pool. IMHO, most r.a.* participants/lurkers are probably in the pool
too, whether they participate in Wings or not.


> If you're appealing to someone who wants the BFR made easier, that's
> backwards. If you're appealing to people who would attend the seminar
> anyway, the BFR thing is unimportant.

Maybe it's the assumption you don't need one.


> Perhaps I'm missing this: you can have an instructor say "yeah, we've done
> the 3 hours dual in the same time frame" if you're currently working on a
> certificate - it doesn't have to be a separate ride. Yes?

Correct. And I've done that. It also falls out of a random rental
checkout and some instrument currency you're going to do anyay.


Morris (btw, anyone have any comments on the "new" wings program?)

[Teacherjh]

>> btw, anyone have any comments on the "new" wings program?

"new"?? What changed?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[zatatime]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 17:37:02 -0700, "David Brooks"
> wrote:

>I've been to a few, and collected one certificate, but I have this basic
>question.
>
>Why is Wings promoted as though it were an "easier" way of getting a BFR?

BFRs require your skills to meet the minimum standards of the
Certificate you hold (PVT/COMM/ATP). WINGS programs only require
logged dual instruction. You can almost kill yourself and the
instructor on every flight, but as long as dual is logged in
accordance with the WINGS phase you are completing you meet the
requirements.

....so, the rationale for the WINGS program being easier is just that
no minimum proficiency needs to be demonstrated.

HTH.

>Flight review is 2 hours minimum, Wings is the program plus 3 hours minimum.
>If you're appealing to someone who wants the BFR made easier, that's
>backwards. If you're appealing to people who would attend the seminar
>anyway, the BFR thing is unimportant.
>
>Perhaps I'm missing this: you can have an instructor say "yeah, we've done
>the 3 hours dual in the same time frame" if you're currently working on a
>certificate - it doesn't have to be a separate ride. Yes?
>
>-- David Brooks
>
>"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 3 May 2004 18:15:27 -0500, Journeyman
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, C J Campbell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> You don't do the Wings program?
>> >>
>> >> The Wings program is hardly worth the trouble.
>>
>> I do the Wings programs regularly, but I don't recall ever sending in
>> for any stage. When I took the AirSafety Foundation/ABS proficency
>> training I did qualify for one phase of the wings program.
>>
>> I've been attending since they started and don't think I have a
>> certicicate for even phase one.
>

[Journeyman]

>>> btw, anyone have any comments on the "new" wings program?
>
> "new"?? What changed?

I got something in the mail a little while back about an alternate
program for more active pilots. I didn't look too closely at the
time. The original program is still in place.


Morris